( this is a description of web-pages by Craig Rusbult, Ph.D. )
I suggest beginning with the
overview of my web-pages,
and then using this page for a more detailed explanation.
This page briefly
summarizes my views (and
provides links to overview-pages), gives tips for
reading what I write, and describes pages in six
categories: age of the universe; the credibility
of historical science; theological
questions about origins; scientific
questions about origins; origins
education; mutual interactions between worldviews
and science.
All non-italicized
links in
the main body of this page will open a new page in a new window, so this page
will
remain open in this window. And links in bold indicate major pages,
which I suggest
for reading.
a summary of
my views:
Theologically, I think
that: God initially created the universe "from nothing",
and is now involved in natural process by designing and sustaining it, and
sometimes guiding it; miracles are probable during formative history — if
this history is analogous to the salvation history of humans recorded in
the Bible, which included divine action that was usually natural-appearing
and occasionally miraculous-appearing — but formative miracles are
not theologically necessary. And miracles in the Bible, such as the
healing in Acts 3, provide theological support for creations by "modification
of existing matter" rather than independent creations from nothing.
Scientifically, based
on evidence and logic, I think God designed the universe so it would be mostly
self-assembling, and my theory for "how God created" is independent miraculous-appearing
creation of the first life, followed by progressive creation — with
continual creation by natural-appearing evolution (probably guided by God,
sometimes or always) over billions of years, supplemented with occasional
creation by miraculous-appearing genetic modifications — for the production
of complex life. All modes of creation — in a design of nature,
natural-appearing action, and miraculous-appearing action — are intelligent
design.
Methodologically, in science
I think naturalism (assuming "it happened by natural process")
should be flexible, not rigid; it should be viewed as a starting point,
as an assumption to be tested (not a conclusion that must be accepted) but methodological
naturalism is not the same as philosophical naturism (claiming
that "only nature exists"). In principle, one type of design-directed
action (in a miraculous-appearing creation of life or modification of genes)
could be detected by using the methods of science, by a logical evaluation
of empirical evidence.
Relationally, my goals
are accurate understanding and respectful attitudes because our "views
about other views and other people" are an important part of life. These
goals are consistent with my recognition that an appropriate level of humility,
about theology and science, is justifiable and useful. I claim to have
some productive ideas about Origins Questions, rather than The Origins Answer. But
humility should appropriate; it should be balanced with confidence,
because even though humility is logically justifiable and is useful (both
intellectually and relationally) we often have reasons for rationally justifiable
confidence, so I think postmodernism "goes too far" and converts
a good idea (re: humility) into a bad idea (re: skeptical extremes and radical
relativism).
Educationally, my philosophy
and goals — as editor of the ASA website for Whole-Person Science Education — are
described in the home-pages for Origins
Questions and Origins
Evidence and in Accurate Understanding
and Respectful Attitudes. All of the pages below express my personal views,
as an author but not as editor.
details
about my views
The following
pages provide an overview for many of my ideas (but not all) about origins:
Reading this
page (the one you're now reading), which briefly outlines each
of my pages, will give you a "big picture" view of a wide range
of origins questions. Recently, in September 2006, I wrote an FAQ
about Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (it's a set of responses
to Frequently Asked Questions) that is a good summary of my views;
you can begin with the "read me first" introduction, and continue
with any parts of the Overview-FAQ that seem interesting.
An
Introductory Overview of Origins Questions for Science and Theology
(written in 1998) briefly summarizes my views.
The
Compatibility of Science and Religion: This page asks, "If
you learn and use science, will this weaken your faith?" and "Are
science and religion at war?", and examines the relationships between
science and natural process, and miracles, and scientism.
My analysis
of Young-Earth Creation: Theology
and Science explains why young-earth theories are not theologically
necessary or scientifically plausible. Advocates of young-earth views
should be admired for their sincere desire to believe what they think the
Bible teaches. But they should consider the possibility that their interpretations
are too rigid, and are wrong.
Theology
and Theistic Evolution explains why, even though I don't think "totally
natural evolution" is the way it happened, I think this view should be
carefully considered, and evolutionary creationists (who think natural evolution
was God's method of creation) should be treated with respect as fellow Christians.
{ But I also ask "What is theistic, not just deistic, about theistic
evolution?" and "What does 'God of the gaps' mean, and why should
it be eliminated from our vocabulary?" }
Methodological
Naturalism (Are scientists required to always conclude that "it
happened by natural process"?) and Intelligent
Design (What is it?) and Intelligent
Design (Is it scientific?) were "split off" from a page
— The Origin of Life:
A Test-Case for Naturalism — that asks, "Is a natural origin
of the first carbon-based life accepted by most scientists (and textbook authors)
because this theory is supported by scientific evidence-and-logic, or because
of naturalistic philosophy?", and — before it was split apart —
provided an integrated overview for a wide range of ideas about methodological
naturalism and design theories, closed science and open science, critical
questions and scientific freedom.
Worldviews
in Origins Science: Our worldviews (which include religion and
much more) influence everything we do, and a desire for personal consistency
produces mutual interactions between scientific theories and religious theories,
with each influencing the other.
Logical
Evaluations of Evolution and Creation examines basic principles
of logic, and develops guidelines for how theories about origins should be
compared and evaluated. In five related sections — Comparisons
and Definitions, The Many Meanings of Evolution, The Many Meanings of Creation,
Logically Valid Comparisons, and Shifts of Meaning — it shows how illogical
"shifts of support" can cause the scientific support for some aspects
of neo-Darwinian evolution to be overestimated.
Origins
Education in Public Schools: Critical Thinking about Evolution and Intelligent
Design summarizes a variety of ideas about worldviews in public schools,
hidden arguments, debates and dangers, methodology and philosophy, critical
thinking and shifts of meaning, and more.
A page about quick education explains
how — in three decisions (about watching
and reading Lord of the Rings) and a library — I realized
that the website I'm developing (for the Science Education Commission
of ASA) offers a "Cliffs
Notes" approach
to a quick education, and that when I'm writing my goal is to give you a
distilled essence of important ideas, a coherent overview that will
help you understand ideas and their relationships.
Here are two tips for reading
what I write, based on the principle that whatever we do in life
should be fun and/or useful:
An effective strategy is stop-and-go
reading: read for awhile, stop and think, then do it again. What
I write is a condensation — a distilled essence of ideas — so
there isn't much to read, but there is a lot to think about. The overall
result of the high ratio of ideas/words is that you can learn
a lot quickly, and this is useful.
An effective motivator is wanting
to learn. Are my pages fun? Probably not,
if you think fun requires humor. But if you're excited by
ideas, and you enjoy learning and thinking, you'll probably think
my pages are fun because they'll help you explore the drama of
ideas.
How
old is the earth?
Principles
for Using the Two Books of God examines the interactions
of people with ideas, and with each other, by asking: 1)
How should we use the information that God has provided for us in scripture
and
nature? 2)
When
we
disagree (in
our
interpretations of scripture or nature), what should we do?
Biblical
Theology for young-earth Christians — If you are a Christian with young-earth
views, or if you're wondering what to think about age, this page is written for
you, to share Bible-based ideas that you'll find both challenging and comforting.
Young-Earth
Views (Theology & Science) explains
why these views are not theologically necessary
or scientifically plausible. {details above}
Historical
Science: Can it
be scientific? (Part 1) This question is motivated by young-earth
creationists who question the credibility of all historical science by claiming
that presuppositions
determine conclusions. They ask, "Were you there? Did you see
it?", and declare that "no" means "therefore you can't know much about ancient
history." Part 2 builds
on the foundation of Part 1, and explains why historical sciences can be useful
in our search for truth
when we ask "age of the universe" questions. {
But historical science will be impossible if historical
evidence
is misleading, if a young-earth theory
claiming that Apparent
Age (with a false appearance of age) is not Actual Age is correct.
}
Death
and Sin
(theology
for humans not animals) explains why a major
theological concern of young-earth creationists (death before sin)
is
not
justified
by
the
Bible.
Evolution
and Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics explains why,
contrary
to
claims
by
many
young-earth
creationists, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not about "disorder" and
it
does not prohibit evolution.
Thermodynamics
and Theology: Entropy and Sin explains
why the Second Law is an
essential part of the way God has cleverly designed nature, and is about mathematical
probabilities,
not
disorder and sin.
Can
historical science be reliable?
Historical
Science: Can it
be scientific? — Parts 1, 2, 3: This question is necessary
because
young-earth
creationists challenge the credibility of all
historical
sciences by asking, "Were you there?"
Descriptions
for Part
1 and Part
2 are above.
Part 3 begins with a
question about evolution — Can a theory of evolution be scientific? — to
establish a foundation for asking the analogous question about design — Can
a theory of design be scientific? — because most arguments against the
reliability of historical science apply to both evolution and design.
Is
old-earth creation inconsistent because it accepts one consensus
conclusion of modern scientists (about age of the earth) but questions another
(about evolution)? This page looks at the reliability of historical science,
evidence-and-logic supporting theories, relationships between theories, and bias
of scientists.
Theological
Questions about Origins
Some questions are above in How old
is the earth?
Theistic
Evolution (Evolutioonary Creation) and Theology is my
criticism-and-defense: I
think "totally
natural
evolution" is not the way it happened, but this view should be respected
and carefully
considered. {a detailed description is above}
Comparing
Evolutionary
Creation and Progressive Creation uses quotations — from Howard
Van Till,
Keith
Miller,
Terry Gray, Loren Haarsma, George Murphy, Robert John Russell, Peter Rüst, Gordon
Mills, Stephen Jones, and Hugh Ross — to show their ideas (and my own)
about divine guidance of natural process, evolutionary creation with intelligent
design, progressive creation with common descent, questions (scientific & theological)
and appropriate humility. (63 k + 16k)
also, God
of the Gaps asks "What does it mean?" and "Should it be eliminated from
our vocabulary?"
Scientific Questions
about Origins
When scientists study a feature
of nature (a star, bacteria, whale, biochemical system,...) they can
ask about its origin. Is
there evidence that it was produced by design-directed action, with action
that
occurred: 1) at the beginning of history, and/or 2) during history? If
the universe was designed so natural process would produce the feature, it would
be #1-design, and #2-design
would be indicated if a feature shows "signs
of
design" and it exists even though it probably would not be produced by
undirected
natural
process. The following pages explain why I think there are scientific reasons
for questions about origins of the universe, first life, and
complex
life:
The
Anthropic Principle and Two
Explanations
for a Fine-Tuned Universe that is "Just Right" for Life: A Multiverse
and/or Intelligent Design? Was
the
universe
designed? Scientists are convinced that small changes in the properties
of nature would make intelligent life impossible, but two theories claim to explain
why our universe is what it is.
What
is a theory
of Intelligent Design? describes four types of design, and explains
what
a "design
theory" is
and
isn't.
Can
a theory of design be scientific? Can evidence-and-logic be used
to
find support for or against a design theory? to prove or falsify it? it
can be useful to think in terms of Scientific Evaluations and Philosophical Interpretations.
The
Science of Chemical Evolution: Could a nonliving system naturally
achieve the "minimal complexity" required to replicate itself and
thus become capable of changing, in successive generations, by neo-Darwinian
evolution? {
This page describes my views and other views; it contains some ideas from the
previous two pages — What is a theory...? and Can a theory...? plus some new
ideas, with specific applications for difficult scientific questions about
the origin of life. }
Logical
Evaluations
of Evolution and Creation examines basic principles of logic,
and
develops
guidelines for how theories
about origins should
be compared and evaluated. {
also, there is a page with questions about Irreducible
Complexity and Rates
of Evolution }
Education about
Origins
My educational philosophy and goals,
as
editor of the ASA "Whole-Person Education for Science and Faith" website, are
described above.
Homepage
for Origins Education (written by me as editor) summarizes useful ideas.
Origins
Education: Critical Thinking about Evolution & Design in Public Schools summarizes
a
variety
of
useful
ideas
about
worldviews
in
public
schools, hidden arguments, debates and dangers,
methodology and philosophy, critical thinking and
shifts of meaning,
and more.
Origins
Education in Public Schools describes web-resources (and provides links)
in five areas: Freedom and Responsibility (Should a teacher be free to "teach
the controversy" by describing evidence for and against the majority and
minority views, and explaining
why there is disagreement? Or does scientific integrity require that
a science teacher should try to convince students that the majority view is
true?),
Legality and Constitutionality, Methods of Teaching, Educational Policies,
and Young-Earth
Views.
Origins Education
in Christian Schools looks
at different approaches to teaching about origins questions in private schools
and home schools. (and in churches)
A talk for the annual convention
of
the National Science Teachers Association in
April
2006: A
Resource for Evolution Education in this Multi-Position Website (from
ASA) that can help you Cope with Complexity in a Climate of Controversy.
Science
and Worldviews |
||
| An
Introduction
to Scientific Method explains the simplicity
of scientific logic (which uses reality-checks to
decide whether "the way we think the world is" corresponds to "the way it
really is") and (in
a model of Integrated Scientific Method that includes empirical/logical
"reality checks" plus conceptual factors, cultural-personal factors, and thought
styles, operating at the level of individuals and communities) the
complexity of actual science. Worldviews in Science: Yes, scientists are influenced by their worldviews — their views of the world, used for living in the world — which mutually interact with (and are manifested in) personal desires, group pressures, philosophical or religious views, and cult ural thinking habits. In this page I ask, "Should scientific method be eks-rated?", and summarize my opinions about controversial "topics for hot debate" among scholars: Are some views of science dangerous for students? Can too much of a good thing be harmful? Do scientists seek truth? Do they claim proof? Do they create reality? How can we avoid running away (or being carried away) to silly extremes? Worldviews in Origins Science says: "A desire for consistency produces mutual interactions between scientific theories and religious theories, with each influencing the other, and our cultural-personal worldviews (which include religion and much more) influence everything we do,... so worldviews can influence science, and science can influence worldviews." |
||
|
|
Here are pages about related topics: Is there proof of God's existence and activity? |
World Views (reality,...) and Quantum Mechanics (my web-pages about worldviews)
Exploring Education: Learning, Thinking, Teaching (my web-pages about education)
Christian Education for the Whole Person (Principles, Motivations, and Worldviews)
a brief bio-page (information about the author)
MORE PAGES about ORIGINS
QUESTIONS (loose
ends and expansions)
Many times, my pages about "open science" have been revised (mainly by condensing, reorganizing, and re-thinking, but occasionally by expanding): In early 2004, I wrote two introductory pages — Methodological Naturalism in Our Search for Truth and A Brief Introduction to Theories of Intelligent Design — to condense essential ideas, but then I wrote a page — The Origin of Life: A Test-Case for Naturalism? — that is better for "pulling together the essential ideas" so I suggest reading it. / For an ID conference in 2004, I wrote an overview page about this website and my pages within it. And the original sections (7A-7G) that are now in other pages (with revisions that are usually minor, but not always) are gathered together in a page claiming to explain why Open Science is Better Science.
There are also older "long versions" (before
they were condensed and revised) of
many
sections
or pages. These often have additional ideas that aren't in the condensations,
so if you're interested in a topic you may find them interesting and useful,
but I
strongly
suggest
that
you
first
read the
condensed
versions that are described above in the
main part of this page. Here
are some long versions: Theistic
Evolution Young-Earth
Views Age of the Universe
(why it
does and doesn't matter) Entropy
and Evolution The Process
of Logically Evaluating Evolution
and Creation Can
theories of design be authentially scientific? Open
Science is Better Science (long version).
homepage for Origins
Questions
(in the "Whole-Person Science Ed" website of ASA) |
This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rusbult.htm